Well, the reason that is seen as an economical amount of space is because they can hire people that accept that tradeoff. If people didn't accept it, then busin

Well, the reason that is seen as an economical amount of space is because they can hire people that accept that tradeoff. If people didn't accept it, then businesses would provide office space. Business will offer the least that people will accept, it's up to you to decide if you will accept it. Working with someone is a voluntary negotiation - that's a two way street. Business decisions about floor space are not sacrosanct, and enough discontent from employees would change norms as it would for anything not vital to company survival. While I give startups some leeway, for large established companies like Apple or Facebook, already rich shareholders are loling all the way to the bank at workers' expense. I'll cry a river if additional accommodations result in falling a place or two on the most profitable companies in the world chart. According to YCharts, FB's quarterly profit margin was an astounding 38% (down slightly from the previous quarter): https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin To reap riches that insane, I consider it an obligation for the leadership of that company to accommodate their workers quite generously. You might argue it's already generous, but compare that to their executive class. The level of inequality is astounding, and this is amongst rich people.